>> Good morning.
Welcome to the committee on the
environment I will open the
meeting at 9.08 a.m. on
February 1st.
The first item is item 1A
receive nominations and elect
a member of the committee.
Is this something you particularly want?
>> I was about to nominate you and
throw you right under the bus.
>> I will take it.
I don't know why I would like to do it.
It only gives you the task of paying
attention to the agenda closely.
But that's fine.
In which case, I accept.
I better look up the agenda so I can
read the items.
I will let staff team up.
Give me a moment.
Yes, I accept.
I suppose we have to have a vote now.
>> I will move appointment of Paul
Meltzer as chair.
>> Okay.
And let's collectively ask all in
favor to say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Okay.
I'm now the chair.
And I will -- you need to give me a
moment to call off the agenda.
>> There's also the vice chair.
>> Oh, okay.
We could make Connie do it.
I mean, that's not bad.
It's good when you're a new member to
at least have a reason to kind of, you
know, learn the process.
I nominate Connie for vice chair.
>> I'll second that.
That's just fine.
>> All in favor?
>> Aye.
It's going to be interesting when he
finds out that he won.
So, yeah, I apologize.
I decided to use my tablet for the
video access.
And therefore I don't have it for
showing you the agenda.
>> Okay.
Let's take a two-minute recess.
Have we not been on during the whole
approval of the minutes?
>> Kim is double-checking.
>> Okay.
We have approval to keep going.
From Billy.
So we'll take that.
All right.
Kathryn Barnett, sustainability manager.
And we've talked about the flooding of
the green belt.
And we have an opportunity to
participate with the core.
So I'm going to pull up my presentation.
>> Can you all see that?
>> Yes.
>> So we had a meeting on site with
Texas parks and wildlife, the core of
engineers, the green belt alliance and
some other stakeholders.
And the core of engineers throughout the
idea of the continuing authorities
program, to participate in the program,
the city would need to just send a
letter to the Fort Worth district
requesting evaluation of the flooding
along the green belt corridor.
It's a pretty good program.
They come in and they study why it's
flooding and meant to be a pretty short
study.
So the logjam, we were out there to look
at the logjam removal that really didn't
help our bigger issue.
They only removed 500 yards south of the
bridge and everything.
You can still see the silt and the sand
bars if you look south of the bridge, if
you've driven out there.
So that's when the idea, we were walking
the trail and looking and that's when the
idea of this cap program came up.
So it supports the smaller community
projects without a lengthy study, funding
for flood risk management, ecosystem
restoration, erosion control.
It does not require congressional
authorization, so it's all done here at
the Fort Worth district, which is a nice
speedy process usually.
And it's a cost share basis with the
sponsoring agency.
Brings in, they like to do the
multipurpose projects, so the green belt
already qualifies for that because it has
the recreation, it has the flood control,
it connects Louisville and Ray Roberts.
And I mean everybody's already partnered
in it one time to get it going, so nobody
wants to see it flooded for the rest of
its existence.
The great thing about it is phase one is
funded 100% up to 100,000 by the Corps of
Engineers.
If it went over 100,000, then it would be
a 50/50 cost share.
They do a pre-assessment with the first 50
of that 100,000, and the parties get to
determine if they want to go forward
after that 50,000.
If it looks like it's going to be a bigger
problem, you can just say no, we don't
want to do it, we're not going to move
forward from here.
The Corps can say that, the city can say
that, the sponsoring agency can determine
whether or not they want to go ahead and
complete the feasibility after phase one.
So after they do the pre-assessment,
that's when any cost share documents
would be developed.
And like I said, after 100,000, it would
be 50/50 with the partner agency.
So if it's cost prohibitive, everybody
can choose not to move forward.
So the $100,000 from the Corps, the city
of Denton can be the lead partner, but we
can also bring in other agencies to
partner.
Texas Parks and Wildlife, since they're
responsible for maintenance, would be an
option.
The Green Belt Alliances said that they
would be interested in helping raise
funds for this.
They've been very successful with
fundraising for projects on the Green
Belt in the past.
So if we needed anything for the
feasibility study, I feel like we could
get the partners for that.
And then if the project is feasible, then
you can always bring in additional
partners for the non-federal funding
share.
And we've done in-kind for several of our
Corps projects in the past as well.
So either a little bit of construction
work or when we built the Clear Creek
wetlands, we did some work out there as
in-kind for our contribution.
So today I'm just seeking
recommendation from the Committee on the
Environment to proceed to counsel to
talk about a letter of request for the
feasibility study.
Do you want to take it down now?
Ripper 10, any discussion?
I mean, I guess my question would be, is
there any downside that I don't see any
based on what's been presented?
You know, we're not obligated to more
than we can do.
We get to make decisions.
It all points along the way about money
and commitment.
And it seems like a great idea to me.
I'm similarly inclined.
The one question I have in the back of my
mind is whether there's anything kind of
counterintuitive about flooding.
It's just a question I think worth asking
early.
You know, when I grew up, we heard forest
fires, the worst thing in the world.
I've got Smokey the Bear, only you can
prevent forest fires.
Then we, you know, as time went on, we
started hearing more about actually you
need a certain amount of forest fires
for the forest to operate properly.
And I just wonder, is there anything like
that that we're missing?
You know, the benefit of the green belt
is when it's accessible is the opportunity
to appreciate nature, not to, you know,
bend into our wishes.
Is there anything sort of beneficial?
I mean, the flooding may well be a
manmade, probably is, manmade effect of
the creation of the lake in the first
place.
But I'm just asking the question, is
there a beneficial effect of it being
flooded so that maybe ideally our
recreation should be kayaking there or
something?
And/or could that question be taken up
as part of the study?
Anything sort of beneficial about it?
We've had that discussion with the Corps
of Engineers and with the Interested
Parties because the area was intended to
be flooded from time to time by the Corps
of Engineers.
It's floodplain and floodway.
It's just gotten to the extent where
it's underwater for a lot longer than
was ever intended.
So there's some theories that because
the two lakes are so close that there's
more opportunity for the silt to build
up in that part of the stream.
And that could be part of the problem.
We just don't have as much flood storage
within the stream.
So it may be expanding one of the wetlands
there to hold more water.
So I think that what we would end up
with hopefully would be a project that
could create more habitat and still make
the area available for recreation.
Well, I'm glad that the topic has been
evaluated.
I would just ask that, you know, since
this is a committee on the environment,
you know, that the -- yeah, that the
environmental -- that we don't go into it
narrowly with a specific result in mind
that Kat is going to be involved in this
meeting, you know, that we periodically
just re-ask the question.
It's, you know, about the environmental
impact rather than the goal.
You know, if you get my drift.
I do.
And we had some stakeholders that would
have preferred all of the logs to be
removed all the way down to Lake Louisville.
But that's fishing habitat.
So the Corps definitely wasn't in favor
of that.
So it is a talking point along the way.
One other question.
Were the restrooms going to be rebuilt?
Is that part of the concept?
The restrooms were installed in 2018.
And they're one of the packaged concrete
restrooms.
So they'll have to be completely cleaned.
I don't know how much the rehab on that's
going to be now.
Is that -- is that part of what's done?
It's part of Texas Parks and Wildlife.
They did have the funding to rehab that
area, but chose not to move forward with
the project because of the continued
flooding.
But, I mean, if -- you know, if we manage
through this group to address that, would
we also then, you know, hope to see them
restored?
Absolutely.
Anything further, Jesse?
Not for me.
So I'll entertain a motion.
I'll move -- well, let me get the item in
front of me so I know how to word it.
Sorry.
I move that we recommend to council
joining the request for the continuing
authorities program.
I'll second.
All in favor?
Aye.
You have your direction.
Thank you.
Okay.
Moving on to item D, receive a report and
hold a discussion on the summary of
greenhouse gas management and seek
direction on new and existing GHG
management projects.
Okay.
Good morning, council members.
James Douglas, conservation programs
coordinator.
Let me get the presentation pulled up.
All right.
And how's that for everybody?
Visible.
Perfect.
All right.
So here today to give a brief review of
where we're at today with the greenhouse
gas management program.
And then really here today to seek some
guidance on the timeline moving forward.
So today's presentation is really going
to be two parts.
Like I said, we'll have a brief review of
the background, the tools that we use, and
the timeline so far to date.
And then as we move into some recent
updates, some of these will potentially
impact how we move forward with the
program.
And so we're, as I said, really seeking
that guidance for the next few months as
we move forward.
Just briefly, some background definitions.
So the two main definitions that kind of
guide what we do.
Greenhouse gas emissions are source
identified gases that treat trap heat and
earth's atmosphere.
And the three that we really focus on for
the purposes of our management program is
carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrogen
dioxide.
The second definition there is carbon
equivalence, which is the metric that we
take a look at, and it's the relative
warming potential of each one of those
gases as they relate to carbon dioxide.
And so an example of that would be
methane's carbon equivalent is 28 when
you take into consideration the time
period of 100 years.
Just as some background, many cities, both
nationally and internationally, have
identified greenhouse gas reduction as a
means of local and global environmental
improvement.
And the next bit there in italics is
really the local portion.
And so greenhouse gas emissions are a
wide-reaching environmental metric.
And basically what we mean by that is it
overlaps with a lot of different things
that we take a look at, everything from
energy conservation to transportation
when we're looking to find an apples to
apples metric.
Greenhouse gases really kind of fit the
bill there.
I wanted to just briefly mention how it
relates to the recently adopted
sustainability framework.
So chapter two is air quality and
greenhouse gas management.
And goals three, four, and six are
really what we're kind of here to talk
about today in terms of setting reduction
targets, annually updating the greenhouse
gas inventory and contribution analysis,
which I'll touch on.
And creating a greenhouse gas mitigation
plan is goal six, and that's a little bit
later in the future.
So briefly, the tools that we use are all
three tools are under the overarching
umbrella of the ClearPath management
software, and that's provided to us
through ICLEI.
The greenhouse gas inventory is what we
conduct annually, and that's the
quantification of carbon emissions.
We do that for both the municipal entity
and the community as a whole, and those
are in three scopes, direct, consumption,
and indirect.
The contribution analysis, which we'll
see in the timeline, was introduced
recently, and that estimates the change
from year to year and helps us better
analyze that data.
And most recently, we introduced the
forecasting tool, which estimates carbon
emissions based on forecasted data sets
and also things like estimated population
growth, housing growth, things of that
nature.
So here's the timeline so far to date,
and we started doing the inventories
annually in 2015-2016, and as you can see
in 2018 is when we really started to
introduce those extra tools that are
going to help us bring the program
forward over the next couple years.
Once again, just a brief summary to date.
You can see there the increasing
emissions on the municipal side but the
decreasing emissions on the community
side, and then we also have the pie
charts there indicating what the major
sectors of those different scopes are.
So that was just a brief summary of
where we are so far, a bit of review.
We did want to mention these recent
updates, which will really guide us as
we move forward.
So the first one, of course, is the start
of the Citizen Sustainability Advisory
Council, and so we feel that this is a
topic under the umbrella of the
sustainability framework that will more
than likely be of interest to that group.
And so the -- I'll get into it on the
next slide, but the current plan is to
give a similar presentation to them at
the start of that group.
We do have that updated forecasting
information, so that was our most recent
task with the program from the Committee
on the Environment was to get that
updated forecasting information and
present some options for the target
setting, and so that analysis has been
completed, and we are looking to summarize
that and bring that forward during our
next presentation, and once again just
continuing with the regional greenhouse
gas inventory, and so as you know, the
inventory lags a year behind, and so
we'll be starting up the 2020 inventory
here over the next month, and so we will
have that data within the next four to
five months to present as well.
So the next steps, once again just to
continue with the inventory and
contribution analysis annually to keep
us most up to date on that data.
The target setting and the updated
forecasting information is slated to be
the follow-up presentation to this, so
that can potentially take place in March
or April, and we're really seeking
recommendations on that timeline.
So as I said, we want to give a very
similar presentation to this, to the
Sustainability Advisory Council just to
bring everybody up to date and on the
same page, and so I'm really just
seeking guidance on that timeline
moving forward, and then looking really
at that target setting presentation as
sort of the next step for the program,
and with that I will take questions and
pull the slides down.
I thought that was informative. I didn't
have any additional questions or no
concerns about sending it forward to the
Sustainability Advisory Committee. I
think it may be useful to put a little
extra detail in when you speak with them
just because we're really accustomed to
all the terms, and we've seen them many
times, but it would be helpful for them
to know kind of the full toolkit we've
got available because they'll have lots
of questions.
For sure, and I think we definitely
wanted to do that. We know it'll be a
two-step sort of the review and
bringing everybody up to date on the
first hand, and then sort of the new
materials on the second one, and so kind
of two separate meetings there looking
at the timeline moving forward was
our thought process.
Well, you know, if the analysis is
complete, I'm incredibly eager to dig
into the detail. I think it is probably
worth maybe thinking aloud a little
between us and both of them on the
difference between what this committee
would do and what we would task the
citizen committee to do. You know, the
work that needs to be done, in my
opinion, is to look at the same time at
possible goals along with sets of
tactics that would attach to those
different goal levels so that, you know,
we're looking for desirable and feasible
and so that, you know, we're kind of
choosing the goals, you know, with our
eyes open about where do we need to get
to and do we see a path to get there.
And I would see the sustainability
advisory council as being tasked with
really fleshing out policy proposals, you
know, under each of the kind of
generalized tactics. I think the goal
setting, I don't know, I teed up for
conversation in terms of like, you know,
is it that we set a goal and then they
go, that's a completely inadequate goal
or, you know, do you have any thoughts
on that? About how to differentiate
between the roles? You know, I kind of
think of it as analogous to the airport
committees. You know, the airport
committees, the advisory committee is
primarily stakeholders, you know, and the
council members may or may not be
stakeholders in a particular way. You
know, I don't have an aircraft and I
don't really use the airport much, but
it's in my district and as an economic
development driver, so I have an
interest in it. The folks on the
sustainability committee are generally
more knowledgeable than I am, I think,
once we get them all appointed up on
whether it's greenhouse gas goals or
whether it's, you know, emissions
generally or waste management, all those
sorts of things. So having them kind of
distilling things down for us a little
bit, maybe. So maybe it's actually
sort of starts, you know, starts with
them and then comes back to us to anyway.
Yeah, I kind of think so because like if
you think about an airport lease
question, they don't get to decide
anything on the airport advisory
committee, but they get to talk about it
because they all, they're familiar with
the players out there, they're familiar
with the tenants and the historical
roles and all that kind of stuff, and
they can, they give really good input at
the ground level. Yeah, so we want the
advisory committee to advise on, right,
imagine that, on an appropriate goal
with the knowledge of the implied, you
know, set of actions that would go with
that, and then we can kind of take it
from there. Yeah, yeah, and then we kind
of come up here to the legislative level
and say, well, gosh, man, the budget
implications, or the, you know, whatever
the different concerns are at the
council level, and then make a
recommendation forward to the full
council. Yeah. Does that give you
direction? Yep, absolutely, and
especially specific to this item, and I
think Catherine will touch a little bit
on the committee as well later, and so I
think that's good insights for that as
well. Do you need anything else from us
at this point on this item? Nope, I think
that was, that was perfect, so I think, I
think we'll... All right, well, thank you
very much, and yeah, I can't think of
anything more important or that will
have bigger implications for this
committee than that, so I'm super
interested in seeing that move forward
as soon as we can get the committee in
place. So let's move on to item E,
Receive a Report and Hold a Discussion
on Updates and Energy Reporting for
State Senate Bill 241.
This is actually me again, so I'm just
going to switch presentations here.
All right, so for this presentation, we're
looking to give a little bit of history
and background on the past iterations of
Senate Bill 241 and then obviously talk
about this iteration starting here in
2019. We're going to go over Denton's
reporting history and talk about some new
initiatives and partnerships that have
come along with this iteration of the
bill. We'll talk about the requirements
and then we will seek guidance on a
resolution for an energy reduction
target, which is part of those
requirements. So just a little background
here, this Senate Bill 241 began in 2001
as Senate Bill 5. It is a state Senate
bill and the goal is to reduce air
emissions associated with electricity
consumption in ozone non-attainment
areas and so it does only apply to those
counties that are in ozone non-attainment
or near non-attainment. It's administered
by the State Energy Conservation Office,
so they're the overseeing entity there,
and it requires that government entities
and public entities submit energy
consumption data on an annual basis and
establish a target to reduce energy
consumption annually, and it also
encourages options for improved energy
efficiency through education mechanisms
and things like that. So this just goes
over the different iterations of the
bill. So it was updated in 2007, 2011,
and 2019 as well, each with a different
bill number there, and then this most
recent one was adopted in September of
2019. So once again, this is an
environmentally based piece of
legislation and a tool for air quality
improvement. Based on the reports that
were collected in 2018, an estimated 1.3
tons of NOx were reduced through the
program reporting, and NOx, of course,
is an ozone precursor, and so that's why
that is a pollutant of interest for the
ozone non-attainment. On the right-hand
side here, we have a flow chart that just
shows you the flow of data, and so local
governments take that energy report, that
annual report, and they send that to the
State Energy Conservation Office. It's
then passed to Texas A&M Energy Systems
Laboratory for further analysis. So
they'll do things such as weather
normalization and basically processing
the electricity data and converting that
into the air quality metrics that
they're looking for. They'll pass that
information to the TCEQ, and they will
then use that as a part of their biennial
report for the Texas emissions reductions
plan, and so that's the one that they
give to the Texas legislature. And so it
does have a bit of a journey, but these
reports ultimately do influence future
policy. So Denton has reported the
energy consumption data to CECO every
year since the bill started in 2001.
During the last iteration of the bill,
which was Senate Bill 898, from the 2011-2012
timeframe, Denton saw an annual
average reduction in electricity
consumption of 3.75 percent, and so you
can see those values there. So here are
some of the changes and improvements
that are associated here in 2020 with
Senate Bill 241. On the right-hand side
in the graph here, we can see how many
reports were submitted to the State
Energy Conservation Office by local
governments in each of the following
years. You can see a jump there in 2019.
This is in part due to some new
partnerships from the State Energy
Conservation Office, so they partnered
with the North Central Texas Council of
Governments as well as the South Central
Partnership for Energy Efficiency as a
resource. It's known as SPEAR, and so
those two groups did a lot of outreach
and education to local governments in
all of the different ozone non-attainment
areas, and so a real increase in
reporting there, which is beneficial to
all of us as we get that increased
data, beneficial for the region as well.
2020 also saw the addition of increased
data collection. Now, these are all
optional data that you can include,
including water, natural gas, EV
charging, and renewable energy. The bill
refers specifically to electricity
consumption, but that doesn't give a
real complete picture of energy usage as
a whole, and so even things like water
and wastewater have energy consumption
from pumping and things like that, and
so to get a real full picture of what
the energy profile looks like, it's
beneficial to include those optional
data sources, and so that's what we've
done there for the 2020 report. And then
this is also what's known as a baseline
year, and so the reports that are
submitted from now until 2026 at the
end of the legislation will all be
compared to this baseline report from
the 2020 calendar year. So just
summarizing the SB 241 requirements,
completing the annual report of energy
consumption from government facilities,
and then once again the optional
reporting there for those different
categories, and then the last one is to
establish a target to reduce electricity
consumption by 5% annually, starting
with the baseline year following the
September 2019 implementation, and so
the 2020 calendar year was the first
full year following the passing of that
bill, and so that will serve as the
baseline year when we set that target.
And so we're seeking recommendation to
draft a resolution for the Denton City
Council to establish that target to
reduce electricity consumption by 5%
annually, and attached in your backup is
also a copy of the resolution that was
passed back in 2011-2012 for the
previous iteration of the bill, which was
that Senate Bill 898. And so we're just
looking for recommendation to draft
similar language and bring that to the
Denton City Council. And I will take
questions.
Pratap?
I'm still kind of formulating if you have
one ready to go.
Well, I have a few. The core one I have
is just, you know, Wi-Fi. Is there a
particular goal that we're trying to get
to over a certain amount of time, and is
that attached to something, or is it just
sort of, you know, a plausible sounding
number? It's less than 10. It's more than
nothing.
It has been five since they added that
requirement. I'm not sure what the
initial logic was behind the 5%, but it
has been historically. That has been the
target to set.
I mean, personally, I don't find that,
you know, a compelling rationale. I
don't reject it, you know, the number.
I just, I would think we could take the
opportunity to have a more thoughtful
goal that's more defensible. Otherwise,
how do you debate it, you know, when it
goes to council? What are the merits of
five? I mean, we can say reduction is a
good thing, but, you know, just, yeah, I
would be interested in more of a rationale
where we're trying to get to by when, by.
And we can ask those questions of some of
the educating partner organizations that
we have some pretty regular contact with
them, so we can definitely bring that up.
And I think that will, you know, pay off
in the next presentation to council when
that's in the backup or in the presentation.
And then I'll pause to check back in with
Pro Tem, if you've got something you want to.
No, I thought that was a good, that was
kind of my core question as well. I mean,
I see where the number came from, but
what's behind the number? And, you know,
we've done similar resolutions and in due
course over the years. So I don't, I certainly
don't have any problem recommending that
same resolution again to council, but I
agree. I think that'll be the questions.
Like, well, wait a minute, where'd this
number come from? Why is it our good
number that we like?
And then the, thank you. Then the other
question I want to ask is about the data
gathering. Is there an opportunity or any
benefit to some kind of community
involvement in local monitoring or, you
know, where through community education
and involvement we can kind of enrich
the date, the tracking on usage is, would
that be?
So the tracking of this data is just the
extrapolation of if government
facilities, so government buildings, reduce
their electricity consumption by X
amount and then.
And the goal is government usage?
Yes, this is, yes, this, this is only
related to public entities and their
direct usage.
Okay, that answers that.
I don't know what you're, you probably
said it, but I apologize if I didn't
register what the deadline is on this.
Do we have an opportunity to, you know,
to hear back on the point you raised
earlier before you go to council?
Yes, so the previous resolution is
covered through 2021, and so this one
will go through 2026 when adopted.
Okay.
That's all I have.
And let's see, you're just seeking
direction, right, there's not a, it's a
discussion.
Correct.
We've done it, we've had the discussion.
All right, thank you.
So let's pretend if you have anything
else, unless I'll move to the next item.
No, sir, I'm good.
Okay, thank you.
Thanks.
Let's move on to item F, receiver
report, hold the discussion and give staff
direction on the proposed industrial
pretreatment streamlining permit.
Okay, thank you.
Okay.
Oh, you're on mute, Deborah.
Now, better.
Yep.
Okay.
You're audible.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Members of the committee on the
environment.
My name is Deborah Vieira.
I'm with environmental services and I
will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
I will be presenting to you about the
proposed changes to chapter 26 of the
report.
>> I don't have any questions.
I'm okay with sending it forward to
council.
Once again, I think when it gets to
council, it might need a little more
detail on -- the full council won't be
very familiar with this permitting
process at all, I don't think.
>> Yeah, I would be patient and be
interested in -- particularly the
public who follows this meeting, getting
to hear some greater level of detail.
My underlying question is what
protections are being compromised, if
any, in the streamlining?
The purpose of the regulation is to
protect health and safety and
environmental quality.
I'm not especially motivated to
streamline removing of any protections.
I take it that's not the intent.
But I think it bears some inspection of
the detail to build confidence that
nothing is being lost.
>> The intent is just to eliminate any
administrative and technical burden.
One of the perfect samples is the
ability to eliminate any
administrative and technical burden.
One of the perfect samples is it allows
the control authority of the POWs to
determine if a particular industry
doesn't have a pollutant as a part of
the discharge process, if they can
actually reduce the number of sampling
for that particular pollutant.
For example, just keep in mind that all
industries subject to pretreatment, they
have to self-monitor themselves, they
have to test and send those results to
the city, as well as the city actually
conducts those samplings.
So in those instances, and there's a
whole slew of parameters that they have
to test for.
There's industries that they don't have
some of those pollutants as a part of
their processes, so they will never have
those present as a part of the discharge.
So these changes will allow the city to
determine after they have demonstrated
that those pollutants are not part of
the discharge, not to continue sampling
for it on a regular basis.
So they still have to demonstrate that
pollutant is not part of the effluent
makeup.
And then after that point, we will not
require them to keep sampling for
something that will not show up in their
effluent.
That's the typical example of some
technical redundancies that they have to
do.
Just keep in mind, those will benefit the
small and medium-sized industry, where
they don't have to keep doing the same
stuff because it is not present.
For the bigger companies, that's not a
big issue.
The other things that allows is to
provide the flexibility on the sampling
techniques that some industry can use
that are more applicable to them and
easier to do.
So again, they will still have to sample.
They will still have to report all the
results.
We will still have to go and sample
it ourselves to verify all that
information.
However, the techniques that they can
use will facilitate that process as
well.
>> Are the techniques less sensitive?
You know, the proposed new, more
permissive, streamlined techniques?
>> No, they are not.
It's just that allow them to use other
methodologies, and those methodologies
are not currently permitted.
>> Why are those methods not currently
permitted?
>> Well, it could be by the time that
the regulation was adopted, what was the
processes in place and what was the
industry used to perform.
It could be that new techniques have
developed and our new equipment have
been more sensitive, so therefore those
methodologies are now available and
acceptable to them.
>> So, you know, I would be interested
since we get another bite at the apple
since we're talking about sending this
to council, but my request would be that
as part of that presentation, that there
be a kind of side by side, what's in the
old, what's in the new, and rationale at
a fairly granular level.
So the public can see, you know, my
concern is even if it's -- my concern is
that there must be a reason that
something wasn't permitted.
If it's new, didn't exist before, that
would be persuasive, but if it's just
like something is maybe cheaper but
would not be as, you know, accurate or
protective, you know, I might look at
that differently.
So I assume that this is not asking for
anything new that you have all this, so
I would just request that that be sort
of laid out in a digestible side by side,
you know, format with old, new, and
rationale.
Is that all right?
>> Yeah.
Will the red line version of the
ordinance help you as well?
>> Not me.
It might help.
Might help someone else, but different
people absorb information differently.
So what I'm asking for, I think, works
for me and I think would be sort of
digestible by, you know, by others as
well.
>> Okay.
Will do.
>> I mean, I don't mean to be
steamrolling.
Pretend, I mean, as, you know, do you
have any objection to what I'm asking?
>> No.
I think that's a good question.
I'm one of those that a red line might
be kind of helpful.
>> I was just looking at red lines.
>> But, yeah, and sometimes I catch
something in a red line that I don't
always catch in something more visual.
>> It happens separately.
I offer up two options.
We say, okay, both.
>> Yeah.
I think that would be very good
information going forward for council.
What are we doing differently?
And then, of course, the public, some
folks very interested in these topics
would ask us for exactly that
information.
>> Will do.
>> Okay.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
That will involve some work.
I know you have the source material,
but it's work.
So with that, I'll move on then to the
next item, which is item D, management
reports, action items, matrix.
The matrix is included.
There's three items there listed.
One of them does have a date in April
to come back, and the other two have
been on there for some time.
So I'm sure there's been previous
discussion, but we have staff
available if there's any questions on
those or if you'd like something added
to the matrix.
>> Rutan?
>> I don't have anything additional.
I'm eagerly awaiting that first one.
As we are in a lot of different
sectors of the city organization, so
the others, I'm just patient.
>> Yeah.
Me as well.
So let's move on to item H, which is
consideration of a meeting schedule.
I think we used to do these monthly.
Is there a reason why we would or
wouldn't do that?
>> I think we have -- I'm muted.
No, I'm not.
Okay.
I think we have the virtual down, so
I think we're good to go monthly again.
Nine o'clock seems to work better
doing it before the luncheon rather
than after because we don't know what
time the luncheon will end.
So we don't have as much flexibility.
>> We know when it will begin.
>> Exactly.
>> I mean, that's fine with me.
Rutan?
>> Very well for me as well.
>> We'll check with Mr. Baker to make
sure.
>> Oh, no.
Majority here.
>> Oh, you're right.
>> Actually, you know, I don't mean
to be too light.
I really -- I don't know what his
obstacles were, and I hope he's okay.
So I'll just say that.
>> I think we already had a
scheduling conflict.
>> Oh, okay.
Very good.
Well, that's everything, then.
So with that, we will adjourn at
2 p.m.
>> Thank you.
>> See you later.
>> Bye.